Meaningfulness

Pihlstrom states, "That is, the fact that no final answers, either substantial or methodological, to our worries about meaningfulness have been or ever can be given...as well as the fact that we...inevitably find ourselves guilty...might be taken to be a among the key potential sources of meaning in our lives. These might be fragile and definitely less than fully consoling sources of meaning, but they might be sources nonetheless." Can we really find meaningfulness in the lack of answers in the universe? On a personal level, I am often grateful for our lack of answers, or lack of access to answers, because it allows for me to always have plenty to think about. I like always being able to think and wonder and speculate, because when you know an answer, you generally stop thinking about it. But the fact that there are some things we can never know, what our purpose is, for example, means that we never outgrow our need to think about them. However, I don't usually think of this as a way to get meaning out of my life, I just like not knowing sometimes. Or is that what makes it meaningful? Maybe I'm not understanding "meaningful" correctly. What makes not knowing a meaningful experience? Is pleasure enough to make it meaningful, or does meaning have to be a little more complex than that? 

Guilt and Morality

How influential is guilt in determining our moral character? The author suggests that guilt "...is such a fundamental moral category that it plays a constitutive role in the ways in which we conceptualize our ethical relations to others. Without experiencing guilt, or at least being able to do so, we would hardly be capable of employing any ethical concepts or judgments. We have to able to acknowledge guilt, to see ourselves as guilty, in order to acknowledge responsibility for our actions." That's obviously a pretty big claim to make. I agree that guilt does play a very big role in our morality, and that the basis for a lot of our actions, or non-actions, is guilt. I agree that it helps us to accept responsibility for our actions. However, although it is quite obvious that guilt is a very effective tool for morality, I am still wondering if guilt is completely necessary. Can one be moral, or develop good moral character, without the influence of guilt? Thoughts, anyone? 

Guilt and Accountability

Are we accountable for our emotions? What about our thoughts? Can a thought or emotion be immoral, or only an action? When should we feel guilty? Can guilt be both good and bad depending on the circumstances? These are a few of the questions that came to my mind while reading the article and discussing it in class. Personally, I believe that we can only be held accountable for our actions, not our emotions or thoughts. I believe it is possible to have objectively immoral thoughts or emotions in certain circumstances, but as long as you are not acting immorally such things are not condemnable and you should not feel guilty for them. I do not believe that you have any control over how you feel or think. I do think that you might, after a lot of practice, hard work, and determination, be able to change your opinions or attitudes about a particular matter, but that is a very particular sect of thought and you cannot assume that all thought processes could be changed so easily. If you have no real control over your thoughts or emotions then you are not accountable for them. You are only to be held accountable for your actions, and immoral actions are the only things you should feel guilty for. There is no point in feeling guilty about anything that is outside of your control, it is not healthy to feel guilt about such things. The proper time to feel guilty is when you knew an action was immoral and you chose to do it anyways.